Adopted Positions

The following are adopted positions of WRAC (based on motions passed by the requisite majority of Member councils):

Dockless Mobility Device Permit Denial

Formally adopted by WRAC in November 2020 | Download the WRAC position letter

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Del Rey Neighborhood Council
  • Mar Vista Community Council
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

The_________ NC/CC urges the City to (1) deny a business license and/or Dockless Mobility Permit, or suspend and/or revoke any previously-issued business license and/or Dockless Mobility Permit, to any provider of Dockless Mobility Devices operating in the City that fails or refuses to cooperate fully with law enforcement in providing information about the user of its Dockless Mobility Device involved in an accident causing injury to another person; (2) if and as necessary, immediately enact additional regulations amending existing rules and/ or data protection policies in the City’s Dockless Mobility Pilot Program to provide for issuance of business licenses and/or Dockless Mobility Permits only upon condition that providers cooperate fully with law enforcement under the circumstances set forth above; and (3) provide for suspensions, followed by revocation hearings, of any such licenses and/or permits issued to Dockless Mobility Device providers that fail or refuse to comply fully with law enforcement under the circumstances set forth above.

Read more

Support for Sign Ordinance Version B+

Formally adopted by WRAC in November 2020 | Download the WRAC position letter

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Del Rey Neighborhood Council
  • Mar Vista Community Council
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council (modified version)
  • Palms Neighborhood Council
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

Refers to City Council file 11-1705

The _________ Neighborhood Council fully supports Version B+ of the proposed sign ordinance as approved by the City Planning Commission on 10/22/2015, Council File 11-1705. We request the PLUM committee of the Los Angeles City Council adopt a version of the ordinance, which accomplishes the following goals that are important to the stakeholders of our community:

  1. Disapproves any amnesty for existing billboards that lack permits or have been altered in violation of their permits
  2. Disapproves the “grandfathering” of any sign districts that were not approved in the ordinance when it was reviewed by CPC in 2009.
  3. Disapproves any new process, including a Conditional Use Permit process to authorize construction or operation of digital off-site signs outside of sign districts
  4. Restricts any new off-site signs, including digital billboards, to sign districts in the 22 areas already zoned as Regional Commercial for high-intensity commercial use
  5. Requires existing billboards to be taken down before any new off-site signs can go up in sign districts. The take down ratio of existing signs to new signs should be 5:1 for conventional and 10:1 for digital
  6. Ban on new digital billboards or on conversion of existing billboards to digital
  7. Request that the City Attorney review all signs without permits and those altered in violation of their permits for enforcement action and compliance.
  8. Prohibits any off-site signage in city parks, recreation facilities and open spaces
  9. Provides for stiff civil penalties with escalating penalties for erecting or maintaining illegal signs and for multiple or repeat offenses so that penalties are not viewed as a cost of doing business

Read more

Data Gathering from Ride-Sharing Companies

Formally adopted by WRAC in November 2020 | Download the WRAC position letter

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Del Rey Neighborhood Council
  • Mar Vista Community Council (modified version)
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

The ______ Neighborhood/Community Council requests that the State of California mandate that localities be empowered to assess the impact on traffic and congestion of ride sharing services by mandating comprehensive data from ride sharing companies available for study. Data should include time spent on the road to and from their homes and between rides for all ridesharing drivers as compared to traffic that would be generated by private vehicles making each trip. The results of this survey should guide both local and state policy in regards to ridesharing and better understand our transportation system. Using such data, the City of Los Angeles should then establish benchmark dates prior to and after implementation of each ridesharing platform and study in a scientific manner using all data available to determine if ride sharing vehicles add to or lessen congestion within the City of Los Angeles.

Read more

SB 50 – Opposition to Senate Bill

Formally adopted by WRAC in May 2019 | Download the WRAC position letter

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council (modified version)
  • Brentwood Community Council (modified version)
  • Del Rey Neighborhood Council (modified version)
  • Mar Vista Community Council (modified version)
  • Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa (modified version)
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council
  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

Whereas California neighborhoods depend upon high quality, citizen driven, local community planning for justice and equity and balanced development, and

Whereas State Senate Bill 50 [Scott Wiener] weaponizes state government code to eviscerate local planning statewide and thereby increases financialization of land use; intensifies inequality; encourages predatory speculative activity; and masks massive wealth transfer by shifting property ownership opportunities away from small owners to corporate investors, and

Whereas the City Charter-mandated Neighborhood Council system of Los Angeles, and the Community Councils of the City of Los Angeles, represent grass roots democracy, and

Whereas California State Senate Bill 50 [Scott Wiener] establishes “one size fits all” development criteria–based on changeable municipal structures such as bus stops and employment locations–to be determined, without democratic due process or public scrutiny, by the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Office of Planning and Research, and

Whereas the lack of analysis of infrastructure and other costs associated with this pen stroke planning creates grave uncertainty that any local agency would be able to “levy enough service charges, fees or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code”, and given the aforementioned lack of fiscal analysis, Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution “No reimbursement” clause is wrongfully applied to this legislation,

Whereas reform is needed for the present state legislative system which allows sweeping, ideological blunt instrument legislation such as SB 50 to be introduced without extensive vetting in local public hearings prior to consideration in the State Legislature, and

Whereas this wholesale removal of all land use authority to the State clearly abolishes all meaningful local input into land use planning and therefore constitutes an attack upon local democracy, upon neighborhoods, and upon the Neighborhood Councils and Community Councils in the City of Los Angeles,

Therefore,  ____________ Neighborhood/Community Council opposes SB 50 and urges our City Councilmembers to introduce a resolution in Council forthwith, opposing SB50.

 

Read more

Reserved seating for Board Representatives with a CIS or Board Resolution

Formally adopted by WRAC in July 2018

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council
  • Palms Neighborhood Council (modified version)
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council
  • Venice Neighborhood Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

Refers to City Council file 15-0524

In the interest of ensuring that local constituencies represented by Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils are heard, the ____________NC/CC requests that seating be reserved at City departmental hearings, commission meetings, and Council meetings for members of Neighborhood and Community Councils [who have submitted Community Impact Statements on item(s) before the body.*]

The _____________NC/CC further requests that the City Council introduces a motion to amend the Administrative Code (Section 22.819) to reflect this policy.

*  Some Councils may choose to omit this qualifying statement, to be in line with a similar LANCC motion.

 

Read more

Opposition to lifting the beach curfew

Formally adopted by WRAC in July 2018 | Download the WRAC position letter

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Del Rey Neighborhood Council
  • Mar Vista Community Council
  • Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council
  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

The ______________ Council opposes the lifting of the beach curfew currently in place, restricting beach access from midnight to 5am, daily. This is in consideration of public health and safety concerns and in keeping with long standing practice, supported by LAPD and LA County Beaches and Harbors, who are tasked with maintaining the safety and integrity of the beach and the shoreline, respectively.

Read more

Westwood NC Subdivision

Formally adopted by WRAC in March 2018 | Download the WRAC position letter

Motion

Immediately stay any subdivision process for NCs, including the one currently underway for Westwood NC, until BONC has had an opportunity to complete the review process, that is duly unfolding, for the subdivision ordinance (including City Council hearings that take into account community input). We further ask that BONC put in place a mechanism for professional mediation before any subdivision election is considered.

Read more

Opposition to Transit-rich Housing Bonus Bill [Wiener, SB 827]

Formally adopted by WRAC in February 2018 | Download the WRAC position letter

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Del Rey Neighborhood Council
  • Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council (modified version)
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council (modified version)
  • Venice Neighborhood Council
  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council (modified version)
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

Whereas the City Charter-mandated Neighborhood Council system of Los Angeles, and the Community Councils of the City of Los Angeles, represent grass roots democracy,

  1. Whereas the newly introduced California State Senate Bill 827 [Scott Weiner] as written constitutes a top down pen stroke planning measure which completely removes land use and planning authority within one half mile of high quality transit from jurisdictions and charter cities,
  2. Whereas removal of said authority clearly abolishes local input into land use planning and therefore constitutes an attack upon local democracy, upon neighborhoods, and upon the Neighborhood Councils and Community Councils in the City of Los Angeles,
  3. Whereas SB 827 as written trashes the density bonus and wage provisions of the JJJ TOC ordinance which were recently enacted by the people of Los Angeles—in good faith—in order to guarantee transit close housing opportunities would actually be available to working and low- income persons and families in the City of Los Angeles,
  4. Whereas the lack of analysis of infrastructure and other costs associated with this pen stroke planning creates grave uncertainty that a local agency would be able to “levy enough service charges, fees or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code”,
  5. Whereas, given the aforementioned lack of fiscal analysis, Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution “No reimbursement” clause is cited inappropriately in this legislation,
  6. Therefore, the _____________ Council opposes SB 827 in its present form.

Read more

Cell towers aka wireless facilities in public right-of-way and on city property

Formally adopted by WRAC in August 2017 | Download the WRAC position letter

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council
  • Brentwood Community Council
  • Del Rey Neighborhood Council
  • Mar Vista Community Council
  • Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council
  • Palms Neighborhood Council
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council
  • Venice Neighborhood Council
  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westside Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council

Motion

WRAC recommends opposing SB 649, which removes from cities the discretionary regulation of “small cell” cell phone towers in the public right-of-way and on city property. Exceptions for historic zones and Coastal Zone are included, but scenic highways and R zones are not included. Local control should be maintained. Cities have capability to properly analyze applications within existing laws and balance protection of neighborhoods with the need for increased wireless capacity.

Read more

Short Term Rentals

Formally adopted by WRAC in March 2016

Passed by

  • Bel Air-Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council (modified version)
  • Brentwood Community Council (modified version)
  • Mar Vista Community Council (modified version)
  • Neighborhood Council of Westchester/Playa (modified version)
  • Pacific Palisades Community Council (modified version)
  • South Robertson Neighborhoods Council (modified version)
  • Venice Neighborhood Council (modified version)
  • West LA-Sawtelle Neighborhood Council
  • Westwood Community Council
  • Westwood Neighborhood Council (modified version)

Motion

Refers to City Council file 14-1635-S2

Any proposed City ordinance allowing short term rentals in presently prohibited zones must include the following essential provisions:

  • No rent stabilized units “RSO” shall be allowed to rent short term
  • Only owner occupied primary residences shall be permitted to host for short term rentals, and only one unit shall be permitted per host.
  • There shall be a cap of 60 nights per calendar year per host for short term rentals
  • Prior to listing, hosts shall be responsible for verifying their properties comply with the Los Angeles Building and Safety code at their own expense and shall make all necessary repairs
  • All hosts shall obtain a City permit and a permanent registration number. The condition of receiving a City permit and permanent registration number shall be the following: proof of primary residence plus liability insurance for this specific use including any rider that may be necessary for a non-conforming use on the property. Examples of proof of primary residence shall include utility bill, drivers’ license and the like
  • Upon filing for a short term rentals permit, hosts shall notify property owners within 500 ft.
  • All hosts shall include their permanent City registration number on all advertised listings in all media
  • All hosts shall register with the City Department of Finance and remit transient occupancy taxes “TOT” including any and all back taxes owed. Short term rental TOT receipts shall not go into general fund but shall be used to create a special enforcement/compliance unit specific to enforcing regulation of short term rentals. An example of this compliance unit is the LAHD inspection program for multifamily units
  • Hosts shall be required to pay the City’s legal minimum wage, abide by hotel employee protections and register with the State Employment Development Department
  • Hosts shall disclose such information as the City deems required for enforcement. Examples of this information shall include the type of rental whether one room or whole house, how many nights per year, how many guests and the like
  • Hosts which refuse to register or disclose information necessary for enforcement shall be prohibited from operating in the City and face such penalties and fines as may be deemed appropriate by the City under the new ordinance
  • Platforms shall only list City registered units and display registration number in each listing
  • Platforms shall disclose information deemed necessary by the City for enforcement and for collection of back taxes and shall be held accountable, including fines and other penalties as may be deemed appropriate by the City, for any unregistered online listings appearing upon the platforms’ website
  • The ordinance shall establish a right of appeal of the issuance of a short term rental permit
  • The ordinance shall establish a private right of action by individuals in the community

Read more

1 2 3 4